MIPSHOP Working Group M. Liebsch
Internet-Draft NEC
Intended status: Experimental A. Muhanna
Expires: April 30, 2009 Nortel
O. Blume
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
October 27, 2008
Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
Abstract
This document specifies a mechanism which enhances Proxy Mobile IPv6
protocol signaling to support the creation of a transient binding
cache entry which is used for inter-MAG handover optimization. This
mechanism is applicable to the mobile node's inter-MAG handover while
using a single interface or different interfaces. The handover
problem space using the Proxy Mobile IPv6 base protocol is analyzed
and the use of transient binding cache entries at the local mobility
anchor is described. The specified extension to the Proxy Mobile
IPv6 protocol ensures optimized forwarding of downlink as well as
uplink packets between mobile nodes and the network infrastructure
and avoids superfluous packet forwarding delay or even packet loss.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Terminology and Functional Components . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Analysis of the Problem Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Handover using a single interface . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Handover between interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Issues with downlink traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Issues with uplink traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Demand for a common solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Use of Transient Binding Cache Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Example Use Cases for Transient BCEs . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.1. Use case SRHO for Single Radio Handover . . . . . . . 12
4.2.2. Use case DRHO for Dual Radio Handover . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Impact on Binding Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4. MAG operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5. LMA operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5.1. Initiation of a transient BCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5.2. Activation of a transient BCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.5.3. Forwarding state diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.6. MN operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.7. Status values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1. Transient Binding option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Protocol Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 33
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
1. Introduction
The IETF NetLMM WG specified Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] for
network-based localized mobility management, which takes basic
operation for registration, tunnel management and deregistration into
account. In order to eliminate the risk of lost packets, this
document specifies an extension to PMIPv6 that utilizes a new
mobility option in the Proxy Binding Update (PBU) between nMAG and
LMA.
According to the PMIPv6 base specification, an LMA updates a mobile
node's BCE after receiving a Proxy Binding Update (PBU) message from
the mobile node's new MAG (nMAG). At the same time the LMA disables
the forwarding entry towards the mobile node's previous MAG (pMAG).
In case of an inter-technology handover, the mobile node's handover
target interface must be configured according to the Router
Advertisement being sent by the nMAG. Address configuration as well
as possible access technology specific radio bearer setup may delay
the complete set up of the mobile node's new interface before it is
ready to receive or send data packets. In case the LMA prematurely
forwards packets towards the mobile node's new interface, some
packets may get lost or experience major packet delay. The transient
BCE extension avoids such loss for MNs, which have multiple network
interfaces implemented while handing over from one interface to the
other and for single radio MNs, which build on available radio layer
forwarding mechanisms.
Additionally, this document specifies an advanced binding cache
management mechanism at the LMA according to well defined transient
BCE states and use cases. This mechanism ensures that forwarding
states at LMAs are inline with the different handover scenarios.
During a transient state, a mobile node's BCE refers to two proxy-
Care-of-Address (pCoA) entries, one from the mobile node's pMAG, an
other from its nMAG. A transient binding on the LMA can be
controlled remotely, such as from a MAG, or by local information,
such as events. This document specifies advanced binding cache
control by means of a Transient Binding option, which can be used
with Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) signaling, to support transient BCEs.
Furthermore, this document specifies forwarding characteristics
according to the current state of a binding to switch the forwarding
tunnel at the LMA from the pMAG to the nMAG during inter-MAG handover
according to the handover conditions. As a result of transient
binding support, handover performance can considerably be improved to
smooth an MN's handover without introducing major complexity into the
system.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
2. Conventions and Terminology
2.1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2.2. Terminology and Functional Components
o IF - Interface. Any network interface, which offers a mobile node
wireless or wired access to the network infrastructure. In case a
mobile node has multiple interfaces implemented, they are numbered
(IF1, IF2, ...)
o Inter-RAT handover. Handover between different radio access
technologies.
o Transient Binding Cache Entry. A temporary state of the mobile
node Binding Cache Entry which defines the forwarding
characteristics of the mobile node forwarding tunnels to the nMAG
and pMAG. This transient BCE state is created when the Transient
Binding option is included in the PBU and PBA as specified in this
document. The LMA forwards the mobile node traffic according to
current transient BCE characteristics as specified in this
document. The transient BCE state is transparent to the pMAG and
the usage of the Transient Binding option is restricted to
signalling between nMAG and LMA.
o Activation of a Transient Binding Cache Entry. Initiates leaving
the transient state of a Binding Cache Entry to become active.
o Active Binding Cache Entry. A valid mobile node Binding Cache
Entry according to [RFC5213], which is not in transient state.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
3. Analysis of the Problem Space
This section summarizes the analysis of the handover problem space
for inter-technology handover as well as intra-technology handover
when using the PMIPv6 protocol as in [RFC5213].
3.1. Handover using a single interface
In some active handover scenarios, it is necessary to prepare the
handover target MAG prior to the completion of the link layer
handover procedures. Packets sent by the LMA to the target MAG
before the completion of the link layer handover procedure will be
lost or need to be buffered.
In some systems, the target MAG will be the recipient of uplink
traffic prior to the completion of the procedure that would result in
the PBU/PBA handshake. These packets cannot be forwarded to LMA.
During an intra-technology handover, some of the MN's uplink traffic
may still be in transit through the pMAG. Currently and as per
PMIPv6 base protocol [RFC5213], the LMA forwards the MN's uplink
traffic received from a tunnel only as long as the source IP address
of the MN's uplink traffic matches the IP address of the mobile
node's registered Proxy-CoA in the associated BCE. As a result,
packets received at the LMA from the MN's pMAG after the LMA has
already switched the tunnel to point to the nMAG will be dropped.
3.2. Handover between interfaces
In client based mobility protocols the handover sequence is fully
controlled by the MN and the MN updates its binding and associated
routing information at its mobility anchor after IP connectivity has
been established on the new link. On the contrary, PMIPv6 aims to
relieve the MN from the IP mobility signaling, while the mobile node
still controls link configuration during a handover. This introduces
a problem during an MN's handover between interfaces. According to
the PMIPv6 base protocol [RFC5213], the Access Authentication and the
Proxy Binding Update (PBU) are triggered in the access network by the
radio attach procedure, transparently for the MN. In addition, a
delay for the MN's new interface's address configuration is not
considered in the handover procedure. As a consequence, the
immediate update of the MN's BCE after the PBU from the MN's nMAG has
been received has impact to the performance of the MN's downlink
traffic as well as its uplink traffic. Performance aspects of
downlink as well as uplink traffic during a handover between
interfaces is analyzed in the subsequent subsections.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
3.2.1. Issues with downlink traffic
Delaying availability of an MN's network interface can be caused by
certain protocol operations that the MN needs to perform to configure
its new interface and these operations can take time. In order to
complete the address auto-configuration on its new interface, the MN
needs to send a router solicitation and awaits a router
advertisement. Upon receiving a router advertisement from the new
MAG, the MN can complete its address configuration and perform
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) [RFC4862] on the new interface.
Only then the MN's new interface is ready to receive packets.
Address configuration can take more than a second to complete. If
the LMA has already switched the mobile node tunnel to point to the
nMAG and started forwarding data packets for the MN to the nMAG
during this time, these data packets may get delayed or lost because
the MN's new interface is not yet ready to receive data. However,
delaying the PBU, which is sent from the new MAG to the LMA after the
MN's new interface has attached to the network, is not possible, as
the new MAG retrieves configuration data for the MN from the LMA in
the PBA. With host-based mobility protocols, such as Mobile IPv6
[RFC3775], MNs can easily control when a binding is updated. This is
different for network-based mobility management, where hosts are not
involved in IP mobility management [RFC4831]
The aforementioned problem is exemplarily illustrated in Figure 1,
which assumes that the HNP will be assigned under control of the LMA.
Hence, the HNP option in the PBU, which is sent by the new MAG to the
LMA, is set to ALL_ZERO. An MN has attached to the network with
interface (IF) IF1 and receives data on this interface. When the
MN's new interface IF2 comes up and is detected by the new MAG, the
new MAG sends a PBU and receives a PBA from the LMA. If the LMA
decides to forward data packets for the MN via the new MAG, the new
MAG has to buffer these packets until address configuration of the
MN's new interface has completed and the MN's new interface is ready
to receive packets. While setting up IF2, the MN may not reply to
address resolution signaling [RFC4861], as sent by the new MAG (A).
If the MAG's buffer overflows or the MN cannot reply to address
resolution signaling for too long, data packets for the MN are
dropped and the MN can experience severe packet losses during an
inter-technology handover (B) until IF2 is ready to receive and send
data (C).
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
+------+ +----+ +----+ +---+
| MN | |pMAG| |nMAG| |LMA|
+------+ +----+ +----+ +---+
IF2 IF1 | | |
| | | | |
| |- - - - - - - - - Attach | |
| | |---------------PBU--------------->|
| | |<--------------PBA----------------|
| |--------RtSol------->| | |
| |<-------RtAdv--------| | |
| Addr. | | |
| Conf. | | |
| |<--------------------|==================data============|--
| | | | |
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Attach |
| | | |----------PBU-------->|
| | | |<---------PBA---------|
| | | |<-====data============|--
[A]?|<-----------NSol---------------------|<-====data============|--
| | | [B] ?|<-====data============|--
| | | ?|<-====data============|--
|-----------RtSol-------------------->|<-====data============|--
|<----------RtAdv---------------------| : |
Addr. | | | : |
Conf. | | | : |
|<-----------NSol---------------------| : |
|------------NAdv------------------->[C] |
!|<------------------------------------|======data============|--
| | | | |
| | | | |
Figure 1: Issue with inter-RAT mobility.
Another risk for a delay in forwarding data packets from a new MAG to
the MN's IF2 can be some latency in setting up a particular access
technology's radio bearer or access specific security associations
after the new MAG received the MN's HNP from the LMA via the PBA
signaling message.
In case an access technology needs the MN's IP address or HNP to set
up a radio bearer between an MN's IF2 and the network infrastructure,
the responsible network component might have to wait until the nMAG
has received the associated information from the LMA in the Proxy
Binding Acknowledgment. Delay in forwarding packets from the nMAG to
the MN's IF2 depends now on the latency in setting up the radio
bearer.
A similar problem can occur in case the set up of a required security
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
association between the MN's IF2 and the network takes time and such
set up can be performed only after the MN's IP address or HNP is
available on the nMAG.
3.2.2. Issues with uplink traffic
In case of an inter-technology handover between two interfaces the MN
may be able to maintain connectivity on IF1 while it is completing
address configuration on IF2. Such HO mechanism is called make-
before-break and can avoid UL packet loss in client based Mobile IP.
However, in a PMIP domain the attachment of the MN on IF2 will cause
the nMAG to send a PBU to the LMA which will cause the LMA to update
the BCE for this mobility session of the MN. According to section
5.3.5 of the PMIPv6 base specification [RFC5213], the LMA will drop
all subsequent packets being forwarded by the MN's pMAG due to the
updated BCE, which refers now to the nMAG as Proxy-CoA. Thus make-
before-break handover is currently not supported by PMIP.
A further issue for uplink packets arises from differences in the
time of travel between nMAG and LMA in comparison with the time of
travel between pMAG and LMA. Even if the MN stops sending packets on
IF1 before the PBU is sent (i.e. before it attaches IF2 to nMAG),
uplink packets from pMAG may arrive at the LMA after the LMA has
received the PBU from nMAG. Such situation can in particular occur
when the MN's previous link has a high delay (e.g. a GSM link) and is
slow compared to the handover target link. This characteristic is
exemplarily illustrated in Figure 2.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
+------+ +----+ +---+
| MN | |nMAG| |LMA|
+------+ +----+ +---+
IF2 IF1 | |
| |\ | |BCE exists
| | \ | | for pMAG
|- -|- - - - \- - - - Attach |
| | s\ |---------PBU----------->|BCE update
| | l\ |<--------PBA------------| for nMAG
| | o\ |
| | | w\ |
| | | l\ |
| | | i\ |
| | | n \ |packet dropped
| | | k --->| as BCE has only
| | | | entry for nMAG
| | | |
| | | |
Figure 2: Uplink traffic issue with slow links.
3.3. Demand for a common solution
To reduce the risk of packet loss, some settings on an MN could be
chosen appropriately to speed up the process of network interface
configuration. Also tuning some network parameters, such as
increasing the buffer capability on MAG components, could improve the
handover performance. However, some network characteristics, such as
access link delay or bearer setup latency, cannot be easily fine
tuned to suit a particular handover scenario. Thus, a common
solution which dynamically controls and enhances this handover
complexity using a simple extension to the PMIPv6 base protocol is
extremely preferred.
This document specifies transient BCEs as an extension to the PMIPv6
protocol. Set up and configuration of a transient BCE can be
performed by means of standard PMIPv6 signaling messages between the
MAG and the LMA component using a new Transient Binding mobility
option. The transient BCE mechanism supports three clearly
distinguished sequences of transient states to suit various handover
scenarios and to improve handover performance for both, inter- and
intra-technology handover. As a result of using transient BCEs,
excessive packet buffering at the target MAG during the MN's handover
process is not necessary and packet losses and major jitter can be
avoided.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
4. Use of Transient Binding Cache Entries
4.1. General Approach
The use of transient BCE during an MN's handover enables greater
control on the forwarding of uplink and downlink traffic to harmonize
handover performance characteristics with the capabilities of the
handover source and target access networks. Updating of an MN's BCE
at an LMA is split into different phases before and after the radio
setup and IP configuration being associated with the MN's handover
from a pMAG to a nMAG.
The use of a transient BCE during an MN's handover splits into an
initiation phase and an activation phase. As a result of the MN's
attachment at the nMAG, the first PBU from the MN's nMAG performs
configuration at the LMA and the nMAG. The LMA enters the nMAG as a
further forwarding entry to the MN's BCE without deleting the
existing forwarding entry and marks the BCE state as 'transient'.
After receiving the PBA, the nMAG enters the MN's data, such as the
assigned HNP, into its BUL and marks the MN's binding with the LMA as
'transient', which serves as an indication to the nMAG that the
transient BCE needs activation. During the transient state, the LMA
accepts uplink packets from both MAGs, the pMAG and the nMAG, for
forwarding. To benefit from the still available downlink path from
pMAG to MN, the LMA forwards downlink packets towards the pMAG until
the transient BCE gets activated. Such downlink forwarding
characteristic is denoted as 'Late path switch' (L).
Decision about the classification of an MN's BCE as transient can be
done either by the nMAG or the LMA, which is described in more
details under Section 4.4 and Section 4.5. Description of a detailed
mechanism on how a nMAG or an LMA finds out to use a transient BCE
procedure is out of scope of this document. The details on the
Transient Binding option and its usage is described in Section 4.4
and Section 4.5.
A transient BCE can be activated by different means, such as a
timeout at the LMA, a PBU from the nMAG, which has no Transient
Binding option included or a deregistration PBU from the pMAG. As
soon as the MN's BCE gets activated, the LMA switches the forwarding
path for downlink packets from the pMAG to the nMAG. This
specification considers an optional state during the activation (A),
which keeps the forwarding entry to the pMAG for some more time as a
transient BCE, solely to ensure forwarding of delayed uplink packets
from the pMAG.
The current specification of transient BCEs covers three clearly
defined walks through the transient forwarding state model during an
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
MN's handover. Each state implies a dedicated characteristic
regarding forwarding entries, in which forwarding rules for uplink
traffic are maintained separately from downlink traffic. To use
transient BCEs during a handover, one of the three possible walks
through the forwarding state will be selected. The subsequent
section describes two example use cases to clarify which walk through
the forwarding state model suits a particular handover. The
forwarding state model is described in Section 4.5.3
4.2. Example Use Cases for Transient BCEs
4.2.1. Use case SRHO for Single Radio Handover
In some systems, PMIPv6 is supported for providing network based
mobility between the Serving Gateway (MAG) and the PDN-GW (LMA) and
handover mechanisms are implemented in the access network to optimize
handover for single radio mobile nodes.
In such system, a well structured inter-MAG handover procedure has
been developed and effectively used. In order to switch the data
tunnel path between the LMA and the pMAG in a systematic way that
reduce packet loss and delay, this inter-MAG handover sets up the
uplink data path from the mobile node through the nMAG and to the LMA
first. As soon as the uplink data path is setup, the mobile node is
able to forward uplink data packets through the nMAG to the LMA.
Since the downlink data path between the LMA and the nMAG is not
setup at the same time of the uplink data path setup, the LMA must
continue to forward downlink data packets to the pMAG. Additionally,
this system utilizes a layer 2 forwarding mechanism which enables the
delivery of the downlink data packets to the mobile node location
while being attached to the nMAG.
In order for the LMA to be able to forward the mobile node uplink
data packets to the Internet, the transient BCE mechanism is used at
the nMAG to send a PBU with the Transient Option to allow the LMA to
create a transient BCE for the mobile node with uplink forwarding
capabilities while maintaining uplink and downlink forwarding
capabilities for the pCoA that is hosted at the pMAG.
During the lifetime of the transient BCE, the LMA continues to accept
uplink traffic from both previous and new MAG while forwarding
downlink traffic to the pMAG only. While the MN is able to receive
downlink traffic via the pMAG, the mechanism used in the pMAG's
access network to forward downlink traffic to the current location of
the mobile node in the nMAG's access network during an intra-
technology handover is out of scope.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
When the nMAG receives an indication that the inter-MAG handover
process has completed, the nMAG sends another PBU without including a
Transient Binding option to update the mobile node's transient BCE to
a regular PMIPv6 BCE with bi-directional capabilities. This
mechanism is used by the LMA as an indication to switch the tunnel to
point to the nMAG, which results in a smoother handover for the MN.
An example of using a transient BCE for intra-technology handover is
illustrated in Figure 3. When the nMAG receives the indication that
the MN is moving from the pMAG's access network to the nMAG's area,
the nMAG sends a PBU on behalf of the MN to the MN's LMA. In this
PBU, the nMAG includes the MN-ID, the HNP, and the interface ID as
per PMIPv6 base protocol [RFC5213].
Furthermore, the nMAG indicates an intra-technology handover by means
of the HI option and includes the Transient Binding option to
indicate to the LMA that this registration should result in a
transient BCE. The nMAG sets the value of the transient BCE lifetime
to a value that is dependent on the deployment and operator specific
[D].
After the nMAG receives an indication that the MN has completed the
handover process and the data path is ready to move the tunnel
completely from the pMAG to the nMAG, the nMAG SHOULD send a PBU to
allow the LMA to activate the MN's BCE to a regular BCE and to switch
the data path completely to be delivered through the new Proxy-CoA.
In this case, the nMAG sends a PBU with the MN-ID, Interface ID, HNP
and at the same time indicates an intra-technology handover by means
of the HI option. In this PBU, the nMAG MUST NOT include the
Transient Binding option, as shown in Figure 3 [E].
In the event that the nMAG receives downlink traffic destined to the
MN from the LMA after sending a PBU with Transient Binding option
included, the nMAG MUST deliver the downlink traffic to the MN. In
this case, the nMAG SHOULD send a PBU to ensure that the transient
BCE has been activated.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
+-----+ +----+ +-----+ +-----+
| MN | |pMAG| |nMAG| | LMA |
+-----+ +----+ +-----+ +-----+
| | | bi-directional |
| |<<<<<<<<======================>>>>>>>>|<-->
| | | |
| | | |
[Handoff Event] | | |
| [MN HO Event] | |
| | [HO Event Acquire] |
| | | |
[LL Attach to | | |
nMAG] | |----PBU (transient)----->|
| | | [D]
| | |<-----PBA(transient)-----|
| | | |
| | bi-directional |
| |<<<<<<<<======================>>>>>>>>|<-->
| | | |
| | | uplink only |
| | |>>>>>>===========>>>>>>>>|-->
| | | |
| | [HO Complete] |
| | |----------PBU----------->|
| | | [E]
| | |<---------PBA -----------|
| |` | |
| | |<<<<<<<<=========>>>>>>>>|<-->
| | | |
Figure 3: Transient BCE support for an intra-technology handover
4.2.2. Use case DRHO for Dual Radio Handover
During an inter-technology handover, the LMA shall on the one hand be
able to accept uplink packets of the MN as soon as the MN has
finalized address configuration at the new IF2 and may start using
the new interface for data traffic, i.e. the PBU for the uplink shall
be done before the radio setup procedure is finalized. But, to allow
the MN to keep sending its data traffic on IF1 during the handover,
uplink packets with the previously existing binding on IF1 shall
still be accepted by the LMA until the MN detaches from pMAG with IF1
and the pMAG has deregistered the MN's attachment at the LMA by means
of sending a PBU with lifetime 0. This is of particular importance
as sending the registration PBU from the nMAG is transparent to the
mobile node, i.e. the MN does not know when the PBU has been sent.
On the other hand, switching the downlink path from the pMAG to the
nMAG shall be performed at the LMA only after completion of the IP
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
configuration at the MN's IF2 and after a complete setup of the
access link between the MN and the nMAG. How long this takes depends
on some interface specific settings on the MN as well as on the
duration of the target system's radio layer protocols, which is
transparent to the LMA but may be known to MAGs.
Similar to use case SRHO, a transient BCE can be utilized for MNs
with dual radio capability. Such MNs are still able to send and
receive data on the previous interface during the new address
configuration. Forwarding between nMAG and pMAG is not required, but
it has to be avoided that the LMA immediately starts forwarding
downlink data packets to the nMAG. This is enabled by a PBU which
has the Transient Binding option included, so that it is not
necessary that MN and LMA synchronize the point in time for switching
interfaces and activating the BCE.
When the handover is finalized, the nMAG sends a second PBU without
including the Transient Binding option and the LMA activates the MN's
BCE. This PBU may overtake packets-on-the-fly from MN to LMA via
pMAG (e.g. if the previous interface was of type GSM or UMTS with up
to 150msec uplink delay). The LMA has to drop all these packets from
the pMAG due to the activation of the MN's BCE. This can be avoided
by another transient BCE state for uplink packets from pMAG, that is
characteristic to this use case and created by the PBU from nMAG and
terminated by a preconfigured lifetime.
The use of a transient BCE for an inter-technology handover is
exemplarily illustrated in Figure 4. The MN attaches to the PMIPv6
network with IF1 according to the procedure described in [RFC5213].
The MN starts receiving data packets on IF1. When the MN activates
IF2 to prepare an inter-technology handover, the nMAG receives an
attach indication and sends the PBU to the LMA to update the MN's
point of attachment and to retrieve configuration information for the
MN (e.g. HNP). The LMA is able to identify an inter-technology
handover by means of processing the HI option coming along with the
PBU sent by the nMAG. As in this example the nMAG includes the
Transient Binding option in the PBU to control the transient BCE at
the LMA, the LMA updates the MN's BCE according to the transient BCE
specification described in this document and marks the state of the
BCE as 'transient' [A].
As a result of the transient BCE, the LMA keeps using the previous
forwarding information towards the pMAG binding as forwarding
information until the transient BCE gets activated. The LMA
acknowledges the PBU by means of sending a PBA to the nMAG. The nMAG
has now relevant information available, such as the MN's HNP, to set
up a radio bearer and send a Router Advertisement to the MN. While
the MN's BCE at the LMA has transient characteristic, the LMA
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
forwards uplink packets from the MN's pMAG as well as from its nMAG.
The nMAG may recognize when the MN's IF2 is able to send and receive
data packets and sends a new PBU to the LMA without including the
Transient Binding option to activate the MN's transient BCE [B]. As
a result of successful activation of the MN's transient BCE, downlink
packets will be forwarded towards the MN's IF2 via the nMAG [C].
+------+ +----+ +----+ +---+
| MN | |pMAG| |nMAG| |LMA|
+------+ +----+ +----+ +---+
IF2 IF1 | | |
| | | | |
| |- - - - - - - - - Attach | |
| | |---------------PBU--------------->|
| | |<--------------PBA----------------|
| |--------RtSol------->| | |
| |<-------RtAdv--------| | |
| Addr. | | |
| Conf. | | |
| |<------------------->|==================data============|<---
| | | | |
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Attach |
| | | |----PBU(transient)--->|
| | | |<---PBA(transient)---[A]
|------RAT Configuration--------------| |
| |<--------------------|==================data============|<---
|-------RtSol-(optional)------------->| |
|<-----------RtAdv--------------------| |
Addr. | | | |
Conf | | | |
|------------NSol-------------------->|---------PBU-------->[B]
| | | |<--------PBA----------|
|<------------------------------------|========data=========[C]<--
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Figure 4: Late path switch with PMIPv6 transient BCEs.
4.3. Impact on Binding Management
The use of a transient BCE requires temporary maintenance of two
forwarding entries in the MN's BCE at the LMA, one referring to the
MN's pMAG, the other referring to its nMAG. Forwarding entries are
represented according to [RFC5213] and comprise the interface
identifier of the associated tunnel interface towards each MAG, as
well as the associated access technology information. Each
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
forwarding entry is assigned a forwarding rule to admit and control
forwarding of uplink and downlink traffic to and from the associated
MAG. Hence, according to this specification, a forwarding entry can
have either a rule that allows only forwarding of uplink traffic from
the associated MAG, or a rule that allows bidirectional forwarding
from and to the associated MAG. The interface identifier and access
technology type info can be taken from the PBU received at the LMA
and linked to each forwarding entry accordingly.
MAGs should maintain the status of an MN's binding and the lifetime
associated with a transient BCE at the LMA in their binding update
list. This is in particular important in case a new MAG needs to
explicitly activate a binding after the associated MN's new interface
has proven to be ready to handle IP traffic.
4.4. MAG operation
In case of a handover, the MN's nMAG may decide to control the MN's
handover at the LMA according to any of the use cases for transient
BCEs described in this specification. In such case, the nMAG
includes the Transient Binding option in the PBU message it sends to
the MN's LMA. If the nMAG wants the LMA to perform a late path
switch, it sets the L-flag of the Transient Binding option to 1. If
the nMAG wants the LMA to enter a temporary activation state after
the activation of a transient BCE has been initiated to follow use
case DRHO, the nMAG sets the A-flag along with the L-flag in the
Transient Binding option to 1. Otherwise, the nMAG may set the
L-flag to 1 and the A-flag to 0 to perform a handover according to
use case SRHO.
In case the nMAG does not control the LMA to perform a late path
switch, but wants to ensure temporary forwarding of uplink traffic at
the LMA from the pMAG and from the nMAG, it may set the L-flag to 0
and the A-flag to 1. The nMAG SHOULD NOT use the Transient Binding
option with both flags set to 0. In any case where the nMAG includes
the Transient Binding option in the PBU with the L-Flag set to 1, it
MUST set the Lifetime field of the Transient Binding option to a
value larger than 0 to propose a maximum lifetime of the transient
BCE. The chosen lifetime value for the Transient Binding option
SHOULD be smaller than the chosen lifetime value for the PBU
registration. If the L-Flag of the Transient Binding option is set
to 0, the timer SHALL be set to 0. Other fields and options of the
PBU are used according to [RFC5213]
In case the nMAG does not include a Transient Binding option but the
LMA decides to perform a handover according to the transient BCE
procedure, the nMAG may receive a Transient Binding option along with
the PBA from the LMA as a result of the PBU it sent to the LMA.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
In case the nMAG receives a PBA with a Transient Binding option, it
SHOULD link the information about the transient BCE use case and the
associated transient BCE lifetime with the MN's entry in the BUL.
Only in case the L-flag of the Transient Binding option is set to 1,
the nMAG MAY activate the MNs transient BCE before expiration of the
transient BCE lifetime by means of sending an updating PBU to the LMA
without including a Transient Binding option. All fields of the PBU
MAY be set according to the procedure for binding lifetime extension
described in section 5.3.3 of [RFC5213]. In case the lifetime of a
transient BCE expires or the LMA approves the activation of a
transient BCE as a result of PBU sent by the nMAG, the nMAG MUST
delete all information associated with a transient BCE from the MN's
BUL entry.
In case where the nMAG decides to include a Transient Binding option
into the PBU, only one instance of Transient Binding option per PBU
is allowed.
A MAG, which serves the MN current pCoA while the LMA already has an
active binding for the MN pointing to this MAG, SHALL NOT include a
Transient Binding option in any subsequent PBU being associated with
the MN's registration.
4.5. LMA operation
4.5.1. Initiation of a transient BCE
In case the LMA receives a handover PBU from a MN's nMAG which does
not include a Transient Binding option and the associated MN's BCE is
active and not in transient state, the LMA MAY take the decision to
use a transient BCE and inform the nMAG about the transient BCE
characteristics by including a Transient Binding option in the PBA.
In such case, the LMA should know about the nMAG's capability to
support the Transient Binding option and the associated procedure.
The configuration of the MN's transient BCE is done according to the
description in this section and the selected transient state.
Otherwise, the LMA processes the PBU according to the PMIPv6 protocol
[RFC5213] and performs normal update of the MN's BCE.
In case the PBU from the nMAG has a Transient Binding option
included, the LMA must identify the use case of the transient BCE
registration according to the L-flag and the A-flag settings in the
Transient Binding option. In case the LMA finds the L-flag set to 1,
but the A-flag set to 0, the LMA configures the MN's transient BCE
and the forwarding rules to support use case SRHO. Accordingly, the
LMA performs a late path switch and forwards downlink packets for the
MN towards the MN's pMAG, whereas uplink packets being forwarded from
both Proxy-CoAs, the MN's pMAG as well as from its nMAG, will be
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
routed by the LMA. The LMA sets the lifetime of the transient BCE
according to the lifetime indicated by the nMAG in the Transient
Binding option's lifetime field or may decide to reduce the lifetime
according to its policy. If the lifetime value in the Transient
Binding option exceeds the lifetime value associated with the PBU
message, the LMA MUST reduce the lifetime of the transient BCE to a
value smaller than the registration lifetime value in the PBU
message. In case of a successful transient BCE registration, the LMA
sends a PBA with a Transient Binding option back to the nMAG. The
L-flag and the A-flag of the Transient Binding option included in the
PBA are set according to the values received in the PBU, whereas the
lifetime field is set to the value finally chosen by the LMA.
In case the LMA finds the L-flag and the A-flag set to 1, the LMA
configures the MN's transient BCE and the forwarding rules to support
use case DRHO. Accordingly, the LMA performs a late path switch and
forwards downlink packets for the MN towards the MN's pMAG, whereas
uplink packets being forwarded from both Proxy-CoAs, the MN's pMAG as
well as from its nMAG, will be routed by the LMA. In addition, the
LMA marks the transient BCE to enter a temporary activation phase
after the LMA receives an indication to activate a transient BCE.
The LMA sets the lifetime of the transient BCE according to the
lifetime indicated by the nMAG in the Transient Binding option's
lifetime field or may decide to reduce the lifetime. If the lifetime
value in the Transient Binding option exceeds the lifetime value
associated with the PBU message, the LMA MUST reduce the lifetime of
the transient BCE to a value smaller than the registration lifetime
value in the PBU message. In case of a successful transient BCE
registration, the LMA sends a PBA with a Transient Binding option
back to the nMAG. The L-flag and the A-flag of the Transient Binding
option included in the PBA are set according to the values received
in the PBU, whereas the lifetime field is set to the value finally
chosen by the LMA.
In case the LMA finds the L-flag of the received Transient Binding
option set to 0 but the A-flag set to 1, the LMA configures the MN's
transient BCE and the forwarding rules to support early path
switching. Accordingly, the LMA forwards downlink packets for the MN
towards the MN's nMAG, whereas uplink packets being forwarded from
both Proxy-CoAs, the MN's pMAG as well as from its nMAG, will be
routed by the LMA. The LMA sends a PBA with a Transient Binding
option included back to the nMAG. The L-flag and the A-flag of the
Transient Binding option included in the PBA are set according to the
values received in the PBU, whereas the lifetime field is set to 0 by
the LMA.
In any case where the LMA finds the L-flag of the received Transient
Binding option set to 1, but the lifetime field of the Transient
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
Binding option is set to 0, the LMA MUST ignore the Transient Binding
option and process the PBU according to [RFC5213]. After the PBU has
been processed successfully, the LMA sends back a PBA with the status
field set to PBU_ACCEPTED_TB_IGNORED.
In case the LMA finds the L-flag as well as the A-flag of the
received Transient Binding option set to 0, the LMA MUST ignore the
Transient Binding option and process the PBU according to the PMIPv6
base protocol [RFC5213]. After the PBU has been processed
successfully, the LMA sends back a PBA with the status field set to
PBU_ACCEPTED_TB_IGNORED.
In case the LMA receives a PBU with a Transient Binding option
included from a MAG which serves already as pCoA to the associated
MN, the LMA MUST ignore the Transient Binding option and process the
PBU according to [RFC5213]. After the PBU has been processed
successfully, the LMA sends back a PBA with the status field set to
PBU_ACCEPTED_TB_IGNORED.
4.5.2. Activation of a transient BCE
When the LMA receives a PBU from an MN's nMAG which has no Transient
Binding option included, the LMA should check whether the MN's BCE is
in any of the specified transient states. If the MN's BCE is not
transient, the LMA performs processing and BCE update according to
the PMIPv6 base protocol [RFC5213]. When the LMA receives a PBU from
the MN's pMAG and the MN's BCE is not transient, the LMA performs
protocol operation and an update of the MN's BCE according to the
PMIPv6 base protocol [RFC5213].
When the LMA receives a PBU from the MN's nMAG which has no Transient
option included but the MN's BCE is in a transient state or the LMA
receives a local event trigger due to expiration of MN's transient
BCE, the LMA should check whether the forwarding rules for the
associated MN are set to route the MN's downlink traffic to the MN's
pMAG. If the forwarding entry for downlink packets refers to the
MN's pMAG, the LMA must update the forwarding information to forward
downlink packets towards the MN's nMAG. After the forwarding path
has been switched, the LMA must update the MN's BCE accordingly.
If the transient BCE indicates that the LMA must consider an
activation phase after leaving a transient BCE has been initiated,
the LMA must keep both forwarding entries for the pMAG and the nMAG
for uplink packets and perform forwarding of packets it receives from
both Proxy-CoAs. If the activation phase can be omitted, the LMA
sets the state of the MN's BCE to active and deletes any forwarding
entry referring to the MN's pMAG. The LMA must delete any scheduled
timeout event for the MN which are associated with a transient BCE.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
When the LMA receives a deregistration PBU from the MN's pMAG, which
has the registration lifetime set to 0 and the MN's BCE is in
transient state, the LMA must update the forwarding rules for the MN
and switch the downlink traffic path from the pMAG to the nMAG.
Furthermore, the LMA sets the state of the MN's BCE to active and
removes any forwarding entry towards the pMAG from the MN's BCE,
irrespective whether or not the transient BCE was configured to enter
a temporary activation state.
When the LMA receives a local event trigger due to expiration of a
timer which has been set to ACTIVATIONDELAY and scheduled to
terminate the activation state of an MN's transient BCE, the LMA sets
the state of the MN's BCE to active and removes any forwarding entry
towards the pMAG from the MN's BCE.
4.5.3. Forwarding state diagram
Figure 5 illustrates the forwarding state diagram and three
transition sequences based on the assumption that the nMAG controls
the use of a transient BCE during an MN's handover by means of
including a Transient Binding option in the PBU message.
The same diagram applies for the case that the LMA takes the decision
to use any of the specified transient BCE use cases. The LMA
indicates the use of a transient BCE by means of including the
Transient Binding option in the PBA it sends back to the MN's nMAG.
As the forwarding characteristics according to the transient BCE
states is independent of whether a MAG or an LMA takes the decision
to use a transient BCE during a handover, LMA-initiated use and
indication of a transient BCE is not explicitly covered in the
diagram.
According to this specification, each BCE has a state associated,
which can be either 'Active' or any of the specified transient states
'Transient-L', 'Transient-LA' or 'Transient-A'. In case a BCE is in
state 'Active', the information in a BCE and associated forwarding
conforms to [RFC5213]. Any of the transient states implies that the
transient BCE has two forwarding entries, which are denoted as pMAG
and nMAG in the forwarding state diagram. The forwarding diagram
includes information about the forwarding rule along with each
forwarding entry. This rule indicates whether a forwarding entry is
meant to perform forwarding only for Uplink (Ul) traffic or to
perform bi-directional forwarding for Uplink (Ul) and Downlink (Dl)
traffic.
State transitions can be triggered as a result of processing a
received PBU or by a local timeout event on the LMA. Presence of a
Transient Binding option in a PBU is indicated by 'Topt' as argument
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
to a PBU or PBA respectively. As a further argument to a PBU
message, the source of the message is indicated, which can be either
the MN's nMAG or its pMAG. The values of the Transient Binding
option flags are indicated in brackets as argument to the Topt.
The diagram refers to two timeout events. TIMEOUT_1 is set according
to the Lifetime value in a Transient Binding option, whereas
TIMEOUT_2 is set to ACTIVATIONDELAY (see Section 8 for the default
value).
The three specified walks through the forwarding state model are
reflected in the diagram below. The first of these is going through
state Transient-L to support a late path switch, which is in
particular useful for use case SRHO, as described in Section 4.2.1.
State Transient-LA is entered to support the use case DRHO, as
described in Section 4.2.2, and considers an activation state
Transient-A. Alternatively, State Transient-L may be entered to
perform a dual radio handover. If only forwarding of uplink packets
needs to be ensured in a particular scenario, state Transient-A can
be entered directly during a handover without going through state
Transient-L nor state Transient-LA.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
+----------+
| No Entry |
+----------+
|
| PBU(pMAG)
V
+----------------+
PBU(nMAG) | Active |
+------------------------------------| |
| | pMAG [Dl,Ul] |
| +----------------+
| PBU(nMAG, Topt[L=1,A=0]) | | |
| +--------------------------+ | |
| | | |PBU(nMAG,
| | PBU(nMAG, Topt[L=1,A=1])| |Topt[L=0,A=1])
| V V |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| | Transient-L | | Transient-LA | |
| | | | | |
| | pMAG [Dl,Ul] | +---| pMAG [Dl,Ul] | |
| | nMAG [Ul] | | | nMAG [Ul] | |
| +--------------+ | +--------------+ |
| | | | |
| | PBU(pMAG, | | |
| | lifetime=0)| PBU(nMAG)|TIMEOUT_1 |
| | | | |
| | | V V
| | | +--------------+
| | | | Transient-A |
| PBU(nMAG)|TIMEOUT_1 | | |
| | | | nMAG [Dl,Ul] |
| |PBU(pMAG, | | pMAG [Ul] |
| | lifetime=0) | +--------------+
| | | |
| | | PBU(pMAG, |
| | | lifetime=0) | TIMEOUT_2
| | | V
| | | +--------------+
| | +--------->| Active |
| +------------------------>| |
+------------------------------------>| nMAG [Dl,Ul] |
+--------------+
Figure 5
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
4.6. MN operation
Operation of MN to support handover and choosing appropriate settings
for a transient BCE is out of scope of this specification. The same
applies to mechanisms for the nMAG to detect the presence of any of
the use cases for transient BCEs, e.g. the simultaneous usage of two
interfaces during the handover. One solution is that the MN signals
its intent for transient bindings to the MAG, either using radio
layer protocols between MN and MAG or with dedicated IP-based
signalling.
This document focuses on extensions required in the MAG and in the
LMA. Other documents address issues of the MN operation with PMIPv6,
such as [I-D.premec-netlmm-intertech-handover] and
[I-D.sarikaya-netlmm-itho].
It is further out of the scope of this document how the MN can
perform address configuration of the same IP address for two
simultaneously attached interfaces.
4.7. Status values
This section specifies the following PBA status value for transient
binding cache entry support. This status value must be smaller than
128 and adds to the set of status values specified in [RFC5213].
o PBU_ACCEPTED_TB_IGNORED: [IANA] The LMA has processed and accepted
the PBU, but the attached Transient Binding option has been
ignored.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
5. Message Format
5.1. Transient Binding option
This section describes the format of the Transient Binding option,
which can be present in a Proxy Binding Update message and a Proxy
Binding Acknowledge message. The use of this Mobility Header option
is optional.
The Transient Binding option can be included in a PBU message which
is sent by a MN's nMAG as a result of a handover. In such case, the
nMAG controls the transient BCE on the LMA and specifies the
associated use case by means of setting the L-flag and the A-flag
accordingly. Alternatively, the LMA may attach the Transient Binding
option in a PBA for two reasons. Either it replies to a received PBU
with an attached Transient Binding option to approve or correct the
transient BCE lifetime, or it notifies the nMAG about its decision to
enter a transient BCE without having received a Transient Binding
option from the nMAG in the associated PBU beforehand.
The format of the Transient Binding option is as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved |A|L| Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6
Type: Identifies the Transient Binding option. To be assigned by
IANA.
Length: 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
octets, excluding the Type and the Length fields. This field MUST be
set to 2.
L-Flag: Indicates that the LMA applies late path switch according to
the transient BCE state. If the L-flag is set to 1, the LMA
continues to forward downlink packets towards the pMAG. In case the
L-flag is set to 0, the LMA will switch the downlink path immediately
to the nMAG after the PBU has been processed.
A-Flag: Indicates that the LMA must enter the Transient-A state
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
before entering Active state when set to 1. The LMA omits the
Transient-A state during activation of a transient BCE state when set
to 0.
Lifetime: Lifetime of a Transient-L state in multiple of 100ms. In
case the L-Flag of the Transient Binding option is set to 1, the
Lifetime field MUST be set to a non-zero value.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
6. IANA Considerations
This specification adds a new Mobility Header option, the Transient
Binding option. The Transient Binding option is described in Section
Section 5.1. The Type value for this option needs to be assigned
from the same numbering space as allocated for the other mobility
options, as defined in [RFC3775].
This specification also adds one status code value to the Proxy
Binding Acknowledge message, the PBU_ACCEPTED_TB_IGNORED status code.
The PBU_ACCEPTED_TB_IGNORED status code is described in section
Section 4.7. Its value must be assigned from the same number space
used for the Mobile IPv6 Binding Acknowledgement status values, as
defined in [RFC3775], and must be smaller 128.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
7. Security Considerations
Signaling between MAGs and LMAs as well as information carried by PBU
and PBA messages is protected and authenticated according to the
mechanisms described in [RFC5213].
In case MAGs or LMAs make use of a further protocol interface to an
external component, such as for support of transient BCE control, the
associated protocol must be protected and information must be
authenticated.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
8. Protocol Configuration Variables
LMA values:
o 'ACTIVATIONDELAY' : This value is set by default to 2000 ms and
can be administratively adjusted.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
9. Contributors
Many thanks to Jun Awano, Suresh Krishnan, Long Le, Kent Leung,
Basavaraj Patil and Rolf Sigle for contributing to this document.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.premec-netlmm-intertech-handover]
Premec, D. and T. Savolainen, "Inter-technology handover
in netlmm domain",
draft-premec-netlmm-intertech-handover-00 (work in
progress), April 2008.
[I-D.sarikaya-netlmm-itho]
Sarikaya, B. and F. Xia, "Proxy Mobile IPv6 Inter-
Technology Handover Issue", draft-sarikaya-netlmm-itho-00
(work in progress), June 2008.
[RFC4831] Kempf, J., "Goals for Network-Based Localized Mobility
Management (NETLMM)", RFC 4831, April 2007.
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
Authors' Addresses
Marco Liebsch
NEC Laboratories Europe
NEC Europe Ltd.
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
69115 Heidelberg,
Germany
Phone: +49 6221 4342146
Email: marco.liebsch@nw.neclab.eu
Ahmad Muhanna
Nortel Networks
2221 Lakeside Blvd.
Richardson, TX 75082,
USA
Phone: +1 (972) 685-1416
Email: amuhanna@nortel.com
Oliver Blume
Alcatel-Lucent Deutschland AG
Bell Labs
Lorenzstr. 10
70435 Stuttgart,
Germany
Phone: +49 711 821-47177
Email: oliver.blume@alcatel-lucent.de
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Transient Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6 October 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Liebsch, et al. Expires April 30, 2009 [Page 33]
